This proposal is geared toward elaborating and extending a "shifting standards" model of stereotype-based judgment. This model suggests that when we judge individual members of stereotyped groups on stereotype- relevant dimensions, we use within-category referents. E.g., given stereotypes that women are more verbally able than men, we are likely to judge the verbal ability of a particular woman relative to (higher) standards of competence for women, and the verbal ability of a particular man relative to (lower) standards of competence for men. The result is that evaluations of men and women on verbal ability may not be directly comparable, as their meaning is tied to different contexts: "Good" for a woman does not mean the same thing as "good" for a man. Evidence supporting the operation of stereotype-based standard shifts can be gleaned from comparisons between judgments that are made on subjective rating scales ("slippery" scales whose units can be differentially defined and adjusted) to those made on objective scales ("common rule" scales whose judgment units maintain a constant meaning across contexts). The key prediction of the shifting standards model is that objective judgments are more likely than subjective judgments to reveal the influence of stereotypes; because subjective scales can be differentially adjusted for different target categories, they may mask this influence. This has both methodological and measurement implications for studying stereotyping in the lab, and practical implications for understanding how stereotypes may be revealed or masked in everyday communication, in formal evaluation contexts (hiring, admissions, firing, etc.), and in the standards we set for ourselves and others on a wide variety of evaluative dimensions. Stereotypes and the consequent application of differential (often patronizing) standards may influence real life outcomes, with clear implications for the mental and physical health of individual targets. Thirty-five experiments (focusing on both gender and racial stereotypes) are proposed to examine: 1) the contextual and normative conditions that promote standard shifts, 2) the processes by which judgment standards are set at different points in a decision process (e.g., initial screening of applicants versus a hiring decision), 3) motivations underlying the use of subjective language, 4) construal of subjective language, 5) the effects of qualitative differences in judgment standards, and 6) the behavioral implications of differential standard use.